Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    May 1, 2011 8:30pm-9:00pm PDT

8:30 pm
complaints. how many complaints were historical received. in 2006, we had nine complaints. in 2007, we had five complaints. this is specifically control specialists or assistant patrol specialists. three complaints. in 2009, 29 complaints. in 2010, nine complaints. i hope that i have satisfied the requirements that the commission has directed me. >> i think this commission, we are dismayed by the lack of compliance. it was the theme last weekend.
8:31 pm
in this very unique situation, especially after the recommended that they be disbanded, in order for them to operate, they would be in compliance for public safety issues involving training and involvement with other officers. and the murkiness of the uniforms looking like the police department, they're using our radios and operating out of our station. i think the message is pretty clear. i was put in a spot last week. the police commission is responsible. once i heard that we were responsible and we put these interim rules in place after significant work with others, we
8:32 pm
would be december of 2008. there is concern. the basic concern is proof of insurance. >> there has to be proved insurance act with in damnation cause for the city. i think we cannot allow people to be operating without insurance. my concern was to find out who submitted insurance. six of the nine the control specialists had issued insurance. that is a third. what do we do? what is the next step? we want to avoid liability for the city. i find out now that we have had 10 patrol specialists failed to comply with information 3 >> we have control specialists have
8:33 pm
not qualified at the range. how to thank you for giving the numbers that we did not yet clear last week. there were active patrol specials, we know who is an active. we're getting our hands around this problem. what do we do next? how do we handle it this evening when we have potentially three control specialists operating lease without insurance? without proof of insurance? we have three patrol specialists out there tonight. they're not qualified with firearms. what do we do? >> we spoke about this. he told me your role as hot dry air and cleaner is that you have to write of the memo. and you will forward that to management control and it will come back to you for an investigation. my concern is, in the interim, what do we do? what if something happens with
8:34 pm
an unqualified user of firearm? i don't know the answer to that question. i think it falls within the hands of the police commission. i know what we need to do tonight. that falls into your lap, chief. i will let commissioner slaughter speak. while they are speaking, we need to discuss what we can do this evening about those. >> we can make recommendations. >> i won a footnote. i want to thank the officer for truly attempting on your direction to somewhat organized the men and women. they will comply with my necessity of supplying this information. what that on record that he did call me several times, wanted to know who he needed to pinch to
8:35 pm
get information. >> on the issue before us, this is a discussion item. these are rules that are in effect since 2008. have a clear which of told us, the individuals are in violation of those rules. how do we handle it? their conversations have you learned. they needed emergency lights to go from one end of the city to another to respond to a call. and remind them to take a look at the departmental bulletin. you're not peace officers. but also be an issue. how to turn it over now to commissioner slaughter to express his concerns. >> thank you for your presentation today.
8:36 pm
i had real frustrations last week and i took it out mostly on the patrol specialists. i think to a large degree, the department for some time has fallen down on its responsibility to monitor the situation. in the last week, you have made great strides in via -- identifying the issues. i think the allies on both v patrol specials and on the department. the work you have done needs to continue. we need systems to retract what is going on and have consequences. we have a system where we can identify that a third of the owners are not complying. unfortunately, i am not sufficiently familiar with our 2008 rules, but if there is not a way that somebody is suspended, who immediately from their beats, which might have to
8:37 pm
be looking at our rules again. one specific question for you, just following up on the third, be no how many seats are represented by those three that are not in compliance? and where those are? the commercial district really love the patrol specials and value them. we want to do what we can to support them, but we have to do it in such a way that is in compliance with our rules. so we know what is going on. are we talking about a majority of the beets? the have that information now? >> i thought i had my mouth with me, and i'd done. i know that by looking at the
8:38 pm
list, i can see one is a predominantly said the industrial area. the other to are very urban. and not surprising given the popularity of the control specialists for those types of district. i would encourage you to continue the work you have done over the last week, and monitoring of the patrol specials is not a one-week job. understand you have many duties. you need to develop the system so that it is sort of automatic , and ongoing process. if the commission needs to look at the rules, you can get ways to have funds -- the immediate consequences for noncompliance with those rules. we have to do that quickly.
8:39 pm
a killing what commissioner marshall -- echoing what commissioner mazzucco said, we will be behind you. we will be doing what we can to support the program. >> starting last week was the first time that we cut through the fog a little bit. now we have some numbers. the picture that works for me is that there are still some good compliance officers that provide services to people it doesn't replace cops, but we are feeling safe around the neighborhood.
8:40 pm
not yet helped pave the picture for us about the compliance, when do we do about that? in my view, there are too class's of violations. they should follow all the rules, but they are really important. they ought to be off the streets. we do that with the parole officer. under the current rules, perhaps on the most serious violations, someone who isn't qualified on time, the reason on the insurance issue, the city is on the vote for it. the city is indemnified. you can report a month or so what are some of the serious violators. perhaps the commission should take action against those. and the viability of the program, i think that is not fair.
8:41 pm
for the good of the patrol specialist, who perhaps you can talk with the president and identify who you think the most serious ones are. perhaps bring those back home if possible within the rules. and whoever is in compliance so far, you only get so many second chances. not everyone is in support. i am. we are all somewhat critical of them. the ones who are not compliant, if they don't do it right away, they will lose their chance to do that kind of work and endanger the entire program. >> one of the issues that was posed to me, the client lists. i went into detail. your list was not kept in my office it is kept in the police
8:42 pm
commission secretary's office. nobody else has access to that. i also want to thank the lieutenant and our past associates who is retired now. they're given us both backgrounds and have been very hopeful. >> i don't have a strong opinion on that issue. i have a strong opinion on insurance, training, who qualified with a firearm. the sum was not qualified, that is an easy one for me. if they are not indemnifying san francisco, they should be off of the street and they should be shut down. you can take away the ones that are complying with the rules. they are not all bad.
8:43 pm
that is not true. and that is not fair. we should bring them physically in front of the commission and if we have the power to say you are forbidden to practice your beat. will be taking -- taken away. the commission should have to take it away from those people. that is my thought. the commission is going to have -- i don't know if the city attorney has ever asked. the issue is that they called them trade secrets last meeting. is there a way legally for the control specialists to give these client lists and the rates charged to the commission? we can look at them because they are certainly monopolistic. they should have a monopoly, we have to make sure that those rates are fair. can they view those in a way that did not --
8:44 pm
>> those documents are confidential. we are aware that there has been at least one request for those records. they want to release them on the grounds that they are confidential. >> a lot of other patrol specialists as well, i really urge every patrol special immediately to turn those over. and consistent with these rules, i think in light of that opinion, there is no defense to turn those over. i call on everybody to comply with the request for the rules. >> i also wanted to just quickly note that we can bring those matters for the
8:45 pm
commission. there is also a process in cases involving allegations of serious misconduct for public safety that require that the chief of temporarily suspend the ordinance. >> to make clear what i was suggesting, i think we need to air this a very specifically. everyone is on notice at this point. they can come back and publicly report on the noncompliance. they really go to public safety. those are two different tracks.
8:46 pm
>> there is an immediate investigation as to why they failed to qualify. >> thank you very much for the additional information. just a follow-up, the city attorney and legal options i understand that we can't take action tonight. >> is a complicated area under the city charter. for what actions may be warranted or appropriate.
8:47 pm
there is at least one process in place. although it would be a very tight timeline. >> maybe there is something in the rules to allow them to take immediate action. >> i did not want to be the person that suggested that, which is why move the commission towards that. commissioner dejesus is next, but before she speaks, i would
8:48 pm
feel more comfortable if there are patrol special officers. i would feel more comfortable if they were not working tonight. we are in this interesting situation here where we told the commissioner, we need to do something. i can't sit back tonight. the emergency measure, i hope those that are not in compliance are not on the street. commissioner dejesus: of like to thank you for your report. you can shoot me an e-mail or something.
8:49 pm
those are really important figures. i know they will change. i also support the control specialists. i agree that they follow the rules. i want to thank allen for working with you, and i want to point out that this is not all of the patrol specialists. there are many that are not, but i believe that they should follow the rules. commissioner marshall: i think it is important, what can we do? i am saying that because it will really send a message to the ones that are not complying. it is very important to tell the other kids, you know, the one
8:50 pm
that are doing good behavior, they don't like to be seen with the ones that are not doing good behavior. i think it will really do something good for the ones that are complying. >> at the urging of the commission, i can ask the lieutenant to call those three patrol specials and ask them to stand out until they are in compliance. -- stand down until they are in compliance. >> he has all of the historical knowledge and has been working for a year-and-a-half with the patrol specials. it was his expert in ho and his past practice where he advised me that under situations -- what
8:51 pm
ever the issue is, the individual lies within the chief of police. he prepared a meal the. after the briefing, if the chief decided to immediately revoke their ability to operate, it would be immediate contact made with the patrol specials. those were either hand delivered or contact made for the patrol special to come and and receive that information. my associate indicated that she has the ability to do so. he has done that in the past. also, one additional item that the lieutenant and brings up is the availability and possibility to research a fine in lieu of
8:52 pm
the individual being taken off of the beat. he describes a situation where somebody had was suspended. if they are suspended, someone else can come and replace that individual. business as usual with somebody else taking their place. however, the possibility of a fine being leveled by the chief, whoever has the power to do so, that was definitely in the thinking stage and the research stage. i don't know where we left off on that. i share that with the city attorney as a point of discussion. >> your presentation was great, i feel that i have a moral and ethical obligation if those three officers did not qualify at the range and have not submitted their proof of insurance, they should be working three should -- they
8:53 pm
should not be working tonight. >> i am happy to work with the department to make sure that proceeds with the appropriate due process and in compliance with the rules. >> they understand that when they operate out of their own -- out of the rules, the liability is theirs. when they entered into their patrol special contract, they agree to abide by the rules. >> they are required to comply with the rules. it would not foreclose someone seeking liability against the city. it would be a case specific about whether or not there would be a liability for the city. >> thank you.
8:54 pm
next item, please. >> one more thing. i have to say something about the chief. i kind of feel old and that i started working with them over 30 years ago as a young officer out in the central district. i could not help but think about some of the mentors and people and sergeants that were of world war two veterans that are now gone that taught us the things that are so important to law enforcement today. of all of those things, those things that our parents taught us were simple rules of respect on how to treat people. there is no doubt that our families are the same. and i know through his commitment, there is a burning commitment to continue that
8:55 pm
tutelage that they received has young 20-year-old people. we are in our 50's. it is still there. i know that through his work, it will carry on to people like my son that is working out at southern police stations. i know that they will have the continued burning desire to give you what our families came to san francisco to be, which was to live a beautiful life. >> give our regards to your family, too. >> the capt. works with the district hand we are very happy with his performance. >> the director's report, a review of recent activities, a presentation of the first quarter statistical report and monthly comprehensive
8:56 pm
statistical report for january 1, 2011 through march 31, 2011. and also for 2010. >> good evening. during the first quarter of 2011, we received 188 complaints of police conduct or failure to perform a duty. we closed 218 complaints. we sustained allegations of misconduct in 16 complaints or 7% of them. we mediated 18 cases, 8% of the cases that we closed. in terms of organizational and budget matters, we continue to consider -- experience organizational contraction. we have 14 line investigator positions, one less than is required by the charter of based
8:57 pm
on staff levels. this is because -- a couple of line investigators began extended three months leaves of absence through may and june respectively. which leaves us with 12 line investigators hall each candle and average of five new cases a month. onto budget issues. on february 22, as the police commission is aware, we submitted our budget that included 20% total budget reductions, 10 for the general budget reduction and 10% for the general budget reduction. 10% also for the contingency. in order to meet this goal, it would require the elimination of two vacant line investigator positions, to fill clerical positions, and one filled attorney position. this would cause a 15% reduction
8:58 pm
in staff had three employees would lose their jobs. if the investigator positions are lost, it would cause increased caseloads that would lead to lower productivity and more delays. the reduction of a physician would necessitate the elimination of the program and leave the outreach work without a court later. if the mediation program were eliminated, it would prevent us from facilitating meaningful conversations between complaint and and police officers. in 8% of the cases that we close. a of the program, those cases would go back to the investigative unit for investigation and increase the investigator posing caseload. reduction of the clerical staff would greatly hamper the officer's ability to comply with legal mandates of document
8:59 pm
production and also would frustrate the timely processing of complaints and investigations. as i stated in my introductory remarks, in the investigation of cases, they opened 188 in the first quarter. in looking at oakland internal affairs division cases, their cases drahthaar -- they handle 2010. looking across the nation to your to